31. March 2008 by Seth.

Recent events in the Hoosier state have given the Underground opportunities to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to stand up for the approximately 3,500 babies who die each day to the knife of inconvenience.

When former Pres. Bill Clinton was in town, the Underground lined the sidewalks of the Grand Wayne Center.  When Sen. Hillary Clinton arrived to push her campaign for the presidency, we were there again—holding signs, sharing truth with those who’d engage us.

Interestingly, though, one trend soon became the norm.  Our signs bore a simple message: Abortion Kills Children.  However, this was, curiously, the only message people did not draw from our signs.

Time and time again, the pro-abortion crowd judged us as war-aficionados and Bush-lovers.  They challenged our right to be present.  They accused us of forcing morality upon them.

They did everything they could think of—except challenge the simple message we wanted to share.

Indeed, those who actually chose to challenge our assertion that each abortion ends the life of a child were very few in number.  Instead, they ignored the letters on our signs and reworded our message to fit their own desired ends.

“Christians don’t judge,” one woman shouted to me.  I engaged her assertion out of respect.  However, in making this claim, not only was she judging me—and thereby contradicting herself because she told me she was a Christian—but she was also avoiding the simple, clear content of “Abortion Kills Children.”  Who were we judging with this message?  Did our signs read “Women Who Abort Are Murderers?”  No. 

I didn’t even have “Klopfer is a Murderer” on my sign—though it would have been tempting, and true.

This woman, like the others in the crowds we’ve met, clearly did not wish to engage the three simple words of our message.

“Bush murders, too!” others exclaimed.  Oddly, though, not a single one of our signs included the word “Bush.”

“More have died in the war than to abortion!” was also heard from the crowd.  Not only is this clearly false—we just recently were told in the media that we’ve reached 4,000 American deaths in the Iraqi war, which is barely more than the number of children killed each day in the abortion industry—but also, again, it has nothing to do with the simple message of “Abortion Kills Children.”

Others simply wrote us off with comments such as, “AKC stands for American Kennel Club.”

Still others spouted off baffling responses such as, “Well, at least they weren’t soldiers.”

Clearly, the effort to speak out against abortion has today been equated to a vote for Bush and an amen to the Iraqi war.

Nevermind the fact that in our midst was at least one woman who has lost relatives in the war.  Nevermind the fact that a polling of all of we prolife demonstrators would have yielded very different views upon the war.

Nevermind these details because, after all, what the crowd truly wanted to do, apparently, was to judge and force their morality upon us.

Ironic, isn’t it?

Posted in News, Social, Politics, Abortion | Print | 4 Comments »

24. March 2008 by Seth.

Some of you left some great comments concerning Sen. Obama’s methods of Biblical interpretation.  Let’s continue the evaluation.

Where is this reference in the Sermon on the Mount to which the Senator is referring?  Great question.  Answer: it’s anyone’s guess.  He did not make it clear, but simply invoked this lengthy passage by name.

Perhaps he was making a veiled reference to Matt. 5:38-48, the well-known section of turning the other cheek to one who has slapped you, of giving your coat when someone takes your shirt, etc.  Or, even more likely, perhaps he was appealing to the first portion of chapter 7—that of judging oneself before one’s brother.

However, for Sen. Obama to claim that these passages support homosexuality is an eisegetical travesty.  The teachings bundled in this section vary from that of Believers remaining fervent in their example as a “city on a hill” (5:13-16), of men and women being guilty of adultery even if they merely lust after another (5:27-28), of giving to the poor (6:1-4), etc.  To invoke this passage by name and declare it a great ally of homosexual conduct would be to ignore the teachings thereof entirely.  Anyone with a KJV, NIV, NASB—or, for that matter, even an NWT—can clearly see that these chapters teach principles of personal conduct, relationships, witness, and that they do not encourage sinful lifestyles.

There is no didactic (teaching) content in favor of homosexuality.  The reference found here to sexuality does nothing to broaden God’s command.  On the contrary, it makes morality in relation to sexuality much tighter.  Indeed, Jesus commands that mere lust is tantamount to fornication.

The Senator’s flippant attitude toward Romans must also be dealt with.  Not only is this passage not in the least obscure, we have no reason to assume that we can merely pick what we want from the Bible and dispose of the rest.  This smorgasbord attitude is that which has produced the neo-pagan, Buddhist-flavored, Christianity-sprinkled New-Agers which populate our country. 

To deny God’s Word, however, is to deny God.  One who chooses to discard commandments from the Father is choosing not to follow the Father.

Indeed, Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15; NASB).  He did not give us access to pick and choose which of those commandments we like.  If we are followers of God, it will naturally follow that we obey Him—and His Word.

Biblical texts may vary in the extent to which they may be easily applied to our lives.  It is quite simple, for example, to see how the Sermon on the Mount ought to guide how we direct our lives.  And, Romans 1:26-27, the “obscure” passage cited by Sen. Obama, can quite readily be applied to our lives in that we are not to engage in the sin it describes.  However, even passages which may not seem to directly apply to us cannot be thrown away.

The Bible is composed of a variety of types of literature—from didactic passages to narratives, from poetry to parables and proverbs, etc.  We must consciously determine which type of literature we are reading as we engage a Biblical text.  Passages which are not didactic in nature will naturally be less quickly applicable to daily life.  However, we cannot declare these unimportant and discard them.

After all, how would our understanding of the long-awaited redemption be cheapened without the epic struggles of the Old Testament, the promise made to Abraham?  How would our understanding of the human condition be affected had we not the poetry of the Psalms which convey the glory of God and the joy of following Him, as well as the despair of the moments during which one feels far from Him?  How could we appreciate the fulfillment of prophecy in Christ had we not access to those prophecies?  How would we properly understand the salvation described in the epistles if we did not have an historical account of the life of Jesus?

However, above all we must note that it is not a text’s usefulness which gains it entry into the canon.  It was placed there by the fathers of old who followed careful criteria, such as, concerning the New Testament, that of a text’s apostolic authority (its link to an apostle).

We cannot uphold only that which we find to be ”central” and discard the rest.  We must properly engage the texts by classifying them into their proper genre.

Yes, there are passages which are obscure, such as Paul’s quick reference to baptism of the dead (I Cor. 15:29).  Even these passages, though, must not be discarded.  Rather, these obscure texts must be interpreted by the more explicit portions of scripture.  We still need to grapple with and attempt to understand them—but we do so by understanding them within the context of the whole Bible, not by merely kicking them out of the canon.

Sen. Obama may need to enroll in Hermeneutics 101 if he wishes to paint himself a devoted Believer.

Posted in Biblical Interpretation, Politics | Print | 2 Comments »

10. March 2008 by Seth.

Jargon, grand visions, empty promises, even a little mud-slinging: these have become the norms of a presidential election year.

But, it is not every candidate who shares with us an insight into his own Biblical hermeneutic—the way in which he interprets God’s Word.  This, Senator Barack Obama did in a recent speech.

His comments: I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other. I don’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That’s my view. But we can have a respectful disagreement on that.

Sen. Obama’s political views are not shocking.  But, his appeal to Biblical texts in order to support these ideas is interesting indeed.

Let’s see what we might learn from Sen. Obama’s hermeneutic:

1.  The Sermon on the Mount is more “central” than other New Testament passages.  Assuming that by “central” he means important, relevant—for he certainly cannot be referring to physical location—according to the Senator, Biblical texts should be arranged on a hierarchy of usefulness.  We need not discuss or consider those texts near the bottom, for it is only the “central” passages which matter.

2.  Obscurity = Paul + Clear description of sin.  The passage to which Sen. Obama refers in Romans (1: 18-32, specifically verses 26-27) is by no means buried within the text.  Indeed, Paul has barely completed his preface and declared his longing to visit Rome when he launches into an account of God’s wrath against mankind because of his sin, including the lust of men toward other men.  This, the Senator argues, is obscure.

3. Disagreement dismisses the argument.  Senator Obama uses phrases like “That’s my view” and “for my faith,” concluding with “we can have a respectful disagreement on that,” almost as if to invoke the cliché “We agree to disagree.”  In doing so, he equates the homosexual debate with that of the Calvinist vs. the Arminian or the discussion among the schools of eschatological thought (that of the “end times”)—debates in which more than one side seems to hold at least some merit. 

Evaluation?

Is the passage in Romans “obscure?” 

Is the debate of homosexuality one in which we simply must “agree to disagree?” 

What of the Senator’s classification of Biblical texts?  Surely we need some framework for understanding the variety of texts we find in the Bible.  Is the above suggested method—that of dividing the “central” from the unimportant, along with a neglect of the latter—the best way for us to do so?  If not, what methods might we employ? 

I’ll reserve my thoughts for Part 2.  First, I’d like to hear your ideas.

Posted in Biblical Interpretation, Politics | Print | 5 Comments »

3. March 2008 by Seth.

“I have seen encouraging signs these days,” the 8th grade science teacher commented to her students.  “A few years ago, I thought society was going down the toilet quickly.  But, today I see kids involved in youth groups and other activities, and I see them making healthy decisions.”

I was struck by the teacher’s words.  I had been invited to speak to these middle schoolers on behalf of True Life Choices, an Abstinence Education program.  And, due to the fact that this was not a private Christian school, I anticipated resistance to my message.

At the close of the program, though, I offered the teens a chance to take my challenge—a challenge not only to abstain until marriage but also to set boundaries in order to aid them in keeping the goal of purity.  With their heads down on their desks and their eyes closed, I invited the teens to raise their hands to receive abstinence pledge cards.  Out of the eighteen students, seventeen took the challenge.

Whether or not the teens remain true to their pledge, I was surprised by the vast majority decision in favor of purity.  While I’d like to chalk their pledges up to my instructional merit and the strength of the material, I can’t help but believe many of them had already been cultivated in an environment of maturity and purity.

And, this brings me back to the comment by the teacher that teenagers are, on a whole, improving—that they are making wise decisions and rejecting impure aspects of our culture—and that this is due to their involvement in, among activities, church youth groups.

The goal of a youth group is to give you teens the tools you need to defend your faith and challenge others.  But, what you do with this is up to you.  Church youth groups cannot always follow you into the schools, to your sporting events, to your extracurricular activities.

Youth groups may be a catalyst for improvement, but this change will only be effective if you do something with it.

What are you doing to influence your generation?  Is the 8th grade Science teacher correct?  Are you teenagers better today than my generation was ten years ago?  If so, is that because you are more proactive, that you are refusing to lower your standards in situations when we children of the 80s chose to embrace compromise?

Make a list of the ways in which you have influenced those around you—friends, peers, siblings, etc.  Include negative and positive examples.  Conclude this exercise with two ways in which you would like to positively influence your generation in the future.

Post your list as a comment on this blog and/or bring it Wednesday night.  (If you do, something just might be waiting for you Underground in return.)

Posted in General | Print | No Comments »